It is lawful for any religious society or federally recognized Indian nation, tribe or pueblo to solemnize marriage conformably with its rites and customs, and the secretary of the society or the person authorized by the society or federally recognized Indian nation, tribe or pueblo shall make and transmit a transcript to the county clerk certifying to the marriages solemnized.
History: Laws 1862-1863, p. 66; C.L. 1865, ch. 75, § 8; C.L. 1884, § 984; C.L. 1897, § 1421; Code 1915, § 3428; C.S. 1929, § 87-104; 1941 Comp., § 65-103; 1953 Comp., § 57-1-3; Laws 1983, ch. 193, § 2; 1989, ch. 78, § 2; 2013, ch. 144, § 3.
Compiler's notes. — As originally enacted, this section also contained the words: "and it shall be the duty of said clerk to record said marriages in the same manner as provided for in the foregoing section, and in case said society or the secretary or the person president thereof fail to comply with the provisions hereof, the same shall incur the penalty provided in the fifth section of this act, which shall be recovered in the same manner as is prescribed in said section." That provision was deleted by the 1915 Code compilers as impliedly repealed by Laws 1905, ch. 65, § 4 (40-1-15 NMSA 1978).
The 2013 amendment, effective June 14, 2013, provided for the solemnization of marriage pursuant to the rites and customs of Indian nations, tribes of pueblos; after "recognized Indian", changed "tribe" to "nation, tribe or pueblo"; after "or pueblo to", deleted "celebrate" and added "solemnize"'; after "society or the person", deleted "presiding over" and added "authorized by"; and after "recognized Indian", deleted "tribe" and added "nation, tribe or pueblo".
The 1989 amendment, effective June 16, 1989, twice inserted "or federally recognized Indian tribe", and made minor stylistic changes.
Lack of evidence of license does not rebut presumption of marriage. — Mere lack of evidence of a record of the issuance of a license or of a ceremonial marriage is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of a ceremonial marriage. Trower v. Board of Cnty. Comm'rs, 1965-NMSC-040, 75 N.M. 125, 401 P.2d 109, overruled on other grounds by Panzer v. Panzer, 1974-NMSC-092, 87 N.M. 29, 528 P.2d 888.
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.